Atlasly

Create Atlasly Project

create_project_from_site

Create an Atlasly project for the resolved site so work can continue inside the full product. Preserves the country and location provenance for plugin reopen. User-supplied coordinates remain unverified with unknown planning jurisdiction; saving does not verify the site, save export files or an evidence snapshot. Chaining: every response returns site_ref; pass it unchanged into another Atlasly tool to reuse the canonical site, coordinates, boundary confidence, LPA, evidence links, and project context.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project_from_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`address`	No	Site address or postcode, with town and country outside the UK. Alternatively pass site_ref from an earlier result; do not send both for different locations.
`site_ref`	No	Canonical site_ref returned by any previous Atlasly tool. Pass it unchanged to chain the same resolved site into this call; address, search_area, or project_id will be filled from it when omitted.
`radius_meters`	No	Search radius in metres around the site. Requests above the caller's limit (1,000 m without an account, 2,000 m with one) are reduced or rejected.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`status`	Yes
`details`	No
`message`	No
`sources`	Yes
`headline`	Yes
`site_ref`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`error_code`	No
`atlasly_link`	Yes
`error_source`	No
`human_message`	No
`key_data_points`	Yes
`top_constraints`	Yes
`confidence_notes`	Yes
`executive_summary`	Yes
`next_best_actions`	Yes
`top_opportunities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations it discloses non-obvious effects: country/location provenance is preserved for plugin reopen, user-supplied coordinates stay unverified with unknown planning jurisdiction, and saving does not verify the site or create export files/evidence snapshots. These explicit non-effects are genuinely useful for a write tool; only idempotency behavior on repeat calls is left implicit (annotations cover it).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then chaining — a sensible order with little waste. The middle sentence is densely packed (verification, export files, evidence snapshot in one clause) but every element carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a non-idempotent write tool with a nested site_ref object and a declared output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, non-effects, and the chaining contract. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists; the remaining gap is behavior on duplicate project creation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents address and radius_meters well, and the site_ref description repeats the chaining instruction. The prose adds provenance nuance (unverified user coordinates, location source) but says nothing about 'name' or the radius limit behavior, which lives only in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an Atlasly project for the resolved site') and frames the outcome ('so work can continue inside the full product'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling open_atlasly_workspace, which sounds adjacent, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear usage context: use it on an already-resolved site to move into the full product, and it spells out the chaining contract (pass site_ref unchanged to reuse the canonical site). It gives no explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative versus open_atlasly_workspace.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Atlasly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?